Lutheran
Senior Services Management Company (Employer) petitions for
review of the June 8, 2016, order of the Workers'
Compensation Appeal Board (Board) affirming the decision of
the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) granting the claim
petition of Jerry Miller (Claimant).

Facts
and Procedural History

Claimant
filed a claim petition on April 22, 2014, alleging ongoing
disability from a "broken eye socket, broken pelvis,
ruptured bladder, [and] multiple scars and
disfigurements" arising out of a "work-related
motor vehicle accident" on March 13, 2014. (Reproduced
Record, (R.R.) at 3.) Employer filed a timely answer on May
6, 2014, denying all material allegations and demanding
strict proof of those allegations. (R.R. at 7-9.) At the
first hearing before the WCJ on May 19, 2014, Employer orally
amended its defenses to include the defense that Claimant was
not in the course of his employment when he was injured.
(R.R. at 13-14.)

Claimant
testified before the WCJ that he had worked for Employer for
twelve years as Director of Maintenance, overseeing three
other employees. He stated that he was a salaried employee
exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, [1] whose regular work hours were Monday
through Friday, starting at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 3:30 p.m.
(R.R. at 20-22, 47.)

According
to both Claimant and Diana Seip (Employer's Executive
Director), Employer maintained a four-building campus over
eighteen acres as a facility for senior citizens. (R.R. at
20-21 and 79-81.) According to Ms. Seip, as part of the
protection for its residents, Employer had a system of
security cameras spread out over the campus. Proper
functioning and accuracy of these security cameras was an
important priority for Employer. (R.R. at 93-94.)

At the
July 14, 2014, hearing, Claimant testified that as Director
of Maintenance, "It means I oversee the maintenance
staff, help implement all the building's systems, repair
the building's systems, [and] respond to after-hours
emergencies." (R.R. at 20.) He testified that he was
called in to work while off-site two to three times monthly.
(R.R. at 22-23.) Whenever he was called in to work while
off-site, Claimant testified that in lieu of additional pay,
he received "comp time, " which accumulated from
the time he picked up the phone until when he arrived back
home. This "comp time" was to be taken as soon as
possible after being called in, and for the same time as the
non-exempt, wage employees he supervised, that is, door to
door, from home to work and back. (R.R. at 23-27.)

Employees on-call for after hours maintenance problems are
not compensated for carrying the pager since these employees
are able to pursue personal activities and interests while
carrying the pager. However, once a call is received and a
determination is made that it is necessary to go to Luther
House [the four-building site], this time will be considered
work time from the point that the employee begins responding
to the call until the work is done and the employee arrives
home or at whatever activity or location where the pager call
was received. All of this time should be recorded on the
timesheet for that workweek.

(R.R. at 68.) The written policy also permitted the employee
to record a minimum of three work hours if the employee must
return to Luther House to respond to an emergency maintenance
call, and receive mileage reimbursement. (R.R. at 69.)

Claimant
stated that he awoke the morning of March 13, 2004,
"feeling very poor, very weak, " from being up all
night due to a reaction to a prescription medication. (R.R.
at 30.) He stayed home past his usual 7:00 a.m. start time
and called his ex-wife, Jacqueline Miller, about his physical
symptoms inasmuch as she was a trained EMT. (R.R. at 30-32.)
While on his cell phone with Ms. Miller, Claimant testified
that Ms. Seip "beeped in, " and he accepted the
call. According to Claimant, she asked him if he was
available to handle the security cameras being down, and he
said he told Ms. Seip he was home and not available because
he was sick, and for such emergencies, "the other guys
were supposed to respond if they can handle it." (R.R.
at 32, 48.)

Claimant
characterized the camera malfunction as "an emergency,
but not life or death, " and when he told Ms. Seip he
intended to take a sick day, she advised him that the others
had already called off. Claimant noted that he was not
infectious, and felt obligated " to go in and fix these
cameras." "I didn't want to make her [Ms. Seip]
mad." (R.R. at 32-33, 48, 53-54.)

Claimant
denied that he told Ms. Seip that he had planned on coming in
to work; rather, he insisted that he told her he intended to
take a sick day. Additionally, when he agreed to come in, he
said he told her he was not staying ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.